Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama and his successors in the White House would be banned from using false claims of national security to conceal embarrassing or unlawful conduct by the government, under new legislation proposed by lawmakers on both sides of the House. The proposed State Secrets Protection Act, H.R. 5956, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), would be the first law to rein in the presidents state secrets privilege, a nearly limitless power to kill litigation by claiming a lawsuit would expose national security information to the benefit of Americas enemies. First recognized by the US Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, the privilege (.pdf) has been increasingly and successfully invoked in the post-9/11 era to shield the government and its agents from court scrutiny in cases involving rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens.
The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation, Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week. This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases.
Also signing on to the legislation is Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan), and Zoe Lofgren (D-California).
So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.
Obama and his successors in the White House would be banned from using false claims of national security to conceal embarrassing or unlawful conduct by the government, under new legislation proposed by lawmakers on both sides of the House. The proposed State Secrets Protection Act, H.R. 5956, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), would be the first law to rein in the presidents state secrets privilege, a nearly limitless power to kill litigation by claiming a lawsuit would expose national security information to the benefit of Americas enemies. First recognized by the US Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, the privilege (.pdf) has been increasingly and successfully invoked in the post-9/11 era to shield the government and its agents from court scrutiny in cases involving rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens.
The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation, Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week. This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases.
Also signing on to the legislation is Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan), and Zoe Lofgren (D-California).
Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
This is pure political posturing. There is no way there are enough votes to overcome a Presidential veto.
Who would get to decide?so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
no, moron... he'd have to PROVE handing over the requested information would be a security issue... not just 'say' it would be.
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
no, moron... he'd have to PROVE handing over the requested information would be a security issue... not just 'say' it would be.
how do you know there is not?
BTW there is gran jury testimony that would be illegal for them to release to congress
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
Doubtful. Are you going to try and tell me their are National Security Secrets in the Documents Obama just Used EP for?
Also Doubtful
so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?
even national secrets?
Doubtful. Are you going to try and tell me their are National Security Secrets in the Documents Obama just Used EP for?
Also Doubtful
The identities of undercover agents should be protected. After the Valerie Plaine outing, Im just not going to trust people with political agendas to do the right thing. Fast and Furious was a huge giant totally avoidable mistake which should have consequences, but Im with Obama on keep names out of the hands of the likes of Issa.
The link has nothing to do with Executive Privilege
Doubtful. Are you going to try and tell me their are National Security Secrets in the Documents Obama just Used EP for?
Also Doubtful
The identities of undercover agents should be protected. After the Valerie Plaine outing, Im just not going to trust people with political agendas to do the right thing. Fast and Furious was a huge giant totally avoidable mistake which should have consequences, but Im with Obama on keep names out of the hands of the likes of Issa.
Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.
